Pure Metal and ANUS

That depends what you mean by troll. I am fully aware I do not share the same views as ANUS members, and am intentionally spawning a debate about my actual views. I am being genuine and sincere, though. I am giving you people an opportunity to stop preaching to the choir, expose your opinions to a new person, and also test the strength of your own convictions and the arguments that support them. I am also offering a new way to look at things that perhaps some may take to heart.

I would respond to your first point thusly: from whence have the sentient beings arisen? If there is no objective reality in which they could have originated and developed, then how could they have ever come into being?

This dilemma is one that applies equally to objective and subjective realities. It remains a scientific mystery how something came out of nothing, and even if you believe in objective reality, the issue is then how objective reality came out of nothingness before the big bang. Another thing to take into consideration is the possibility of an original sentience at the beginning of time which is responsible for sowing its seeds of sentience into the conscious creatures we see today, but even this "God" is not necessary to justify this general belief (at least, not any more-so than simply accepting that any reality at all exists.) Of course, there is the issue of where the original sentience came from, again not a new issue added specifically by this theory but one in effect for all thinking people (whether they believe in a God or not.)

Quote

Now to the second point: what is 'pure metal'? Has there ever been 'pure metal'? Remember that Black Sabbath themselves combined a variety of influences, including horror movie soundtracks,classical music, progressive rock, and psychedelic/acid rock. Metal since its very inception has been an admixture of several disparate compositional techniques and philosophies.

Is there a pure me? In one sense, the sense you are thinking with, the answer is no. I am a mixture of my mother and father's genes. In another sense, I am my pure self, because my self is defined by what created me and whose essence became components of me. Heavy metal has the genes of hard rock, blues, classical, and its many parents (and ancestors) that bred it. Punk is not one of those parents or ancestors.

Nihilism as has been popularly portrayed in punk music is passive nihilism, which is fatalism trying to disguise itself as something other than a personal disposition. In other words: nothing is of any value, so nothing is worthy of pursuit. This is not the idea of nihilism that is defined by the ANUS website as the more explicative definition of the term nihilism, and I say more explicative because the ANUSian definition of nihilism cannot be easily confused with fatalism. The only definition of nihilism the website provides is that the universe has no inherent values. Think about that for a moment; some values that human beings take for granted as inherent go far beyond religious values, but extend to things like the absolute good of the accrual of greater amount of resources provided by scientific research, the indisputable value of human life, and the categorizing of anything painful to the human experience as absolutely negative or a "problem" of reality. If we examine the universe, and not through the lens of "how does this play into my desire to achieve this or that", then we can easily see that nothing has an absolute value, because it does create a result that can be measured as "good" or "bad" in every single instance that it is interacted with.

Indeed, this clears up exactly what is meant by nihilism in the ANUS context. As an individualist though, I address the issue of a universal truth by equating it with my perception. Every instance that I am sentient, I experience existence through one lens. This lens is inescapable, the only thing I know to be true for sure. I do not necessarily believe there is an objective reality. I would imagine others have there own subjective realities, but since I can never experience them, I focus on my own. This does not mean I become a sociopath, hedonist, or non-theistic Satanist of some sort concerned only with his own pleasure; I have a personality that takes pleasure in watching those who are good in an apparent state of joy, and those who are bad in an apparent state of suffering. Good and bad are determined by myself, and this is not arrogant since I do not expect others to see themselves in any less of a state of judgment (if they judge differently, then prepare for battle), and I balance out my will to see justice with my hedonistic personal desires and seven deadly sins; I believe balance is pivotal, for me as an individual, to get what I want most out of life.

Even nihilism as defined by ANUS doesn't sit so well with me as a metal philosophy. I think a metalhead should be able to raise his fist in the air and say "I know that brotherhood and unity, truth and justice, and rocking as hard as you can is the best way to live; these are values that are absolutely true and good. If you disagree, then we might just meet in war." I do not like wishy washy there-is-no-absolute-right-and-wrong. I think metal gives off a stronger aura than that.

This leaves INFINITE space open for the interpretation of reality not as something we use only as an ends to alleviate our pain, which a nihilistic viewpoint realizes is only a human conception, but as something we can create, through a form of romanticism, into something worth living for. The website does advocate the idea of metal as romanticism, and very earnestly so. Metal is not meant to prove anything, like the worthlessness of pursuing anything because of the worthlessness of existence, that would be against a nihilistic perspective as defined by the website. Metal creates an experience, and through the value of that experience itself does one come to an appreciation of it. The removal of bias to pursue any means necessary to make existence worthwhile not in just the alleviation of pain, which eventually creates world-weariness, or weariness of the battle to alleviate pain, but worthwhile in the sense that it is a powerful, epic experience, much like those swords and sorcery books you like the influence of in metal so much, IS nihilism as supported by the website. The website feels that death and black metal, because the song-structure of these genres tends to be more epic and narrative, and tends to attempt the communication of experience without a moral "point" in the most vivid methods possible, is the height of this desire of removing personal bias to begin to worship the real, and not just gloomily accept it like a punk. The website also celebrates heavy metal groups that created the foundations for this sentiment, but I think it only finds them less communicative than death and black metal on the grounds that sometimes heavy metal can be little more than some slightly discursive verse-chorus songs with only the lyrical subject matter pointing towards something epic. This sort of creates the utilirianist idea that as long as you write lyrics about big battles, warriors, and being powerful that you must communicate the spirit of metal, and so it makes it possible for any band to make that sort of music and feel accomplished, instead of feeling accomplished for putting immense effort into a song that breathes that epic nature through the melodies and the placement of melodies itself. That shirking away from accomplishment in preference for "as long as you got songs about warriors, you're in" attitude, is NOT very metal, wouldn't you agree?

I define metal by its texture and riffing style, not necessarily by its lyrics. If a hiphop band sings about warriors, it is still not going to be metal, because sonically it just is not. What makes heavy metal special to me is that the music matches up perfectly with the atmosphere and attitude created by the lyrics. They go hand-in-hand. The verse-chorus format is one of my favorite song structures, a tradition that has stood the test of time for the reason that it best communicates anthemic feelings. A lot of times, heavy metal is a very simplistic art form, capturing raw human emotions in their natural state, celebrating their nostalgia for age-old traditions alongside rebellion and individuality; it warps the orthodox instead of creating a new one. That being said, I also love epic songs that take me on a journey, but life isn't about journeys. I like music that reflects my life, my feelings, and my fantasies; while I may go on journeys now and then, if all my music were a journey I would fail to celebrate myself in my entirety. A significant portion of my life consists of hanging out with friends, going to work, going to university, a party here and a camping trip there, and satiating natural human urges of hunger, thirst, lust, greed, and relaxation. Some of these things are far from journeys; they are the tedious, mundane, or at the very least formulaic ordeals of daily life, and I want art to be able to take snapshots of this. Epic song structures would be very inappropriate for this. Even epic lyrics would not work, which is why only some of the metal I listen to deals with it, although it is amongst my personal favorite subjects and takes up a huge chunk of my listening pleasure.

A lot of the heavy metal I listen to is not just sword and sorcery, but also as I said, denim and leather. They sing about falling in love and breaking up, riding down the highway, having sex or drinking a beer, etc. It is certainly not all epic, or a journey; still, it is exactly what I view as the pure, true metal spirit that is completely unadulterated.

Perhaps the ANUS philosophy is a hybrid of metallic romanticism with punkish "pseudo-nihilism" or fatalism (however you think of it). What I am confident in is that it is not the same as my philosophy, or the philosophy of heavy metal and its creators. I have seen ANUS be critical of rock music, which is absurd to me, because I am proud to shout out heavy metal as the greatest of all rock genres. There is a reason why so many metal bands sing about rocking out; how do you people want to distance yourselves from our respectable rock-and-roller ancestors who created us? Heavy metal is an amped up Little Richard song, to paraphrase Lemmy of Motorhead; that is a great compliment, because heavy metal amplifies the original rebellion and will to power of rock and roll and takes it a step further. It also, in addition, branches off into new and exciting grounds that ignite my wanderlust.

Remember that even a simple trek through the woods can be a journey.

The "rebellion" exemplified by Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, and their ilk seems to me to be little more than the musical equivalent of refusing to take out the garbage. You should also keep rock 'n rolls' almost purely corporate roots in mind.

The role of punk in the development of metal is akin to the primordial integration of mitochondria into prokaryotic cells: the original organism was fully functional on its own, but new levels of complexity were only possible once these new organelles, once independent creatures themselves, became part of their biochemical makeup.

A simple trek through the woods may be able to be called a journey, but you and I both know that by this logic "I Kissed a Girl" by Kate Perry is a "journey." Am I wrong to presume that when ANUS refers to musical journeys, they refer to ones that are somehow complex, epic, and/or lead us to an epiphany?

Rock and roll sonically and commercially was limited by its time, but it is easy to see the spirit. And to be honest, I like those limits, because it makes me use my own mind to imagine the grandiosity that may not sonically exist, but certainly can be felt if you are in touch. It is like the difference between reading a novel and watching a film.

Your analogy to prokaryotes does not work due to the reason that we do not refer to the organisms that evolved from them as "prokaryotic cells." We refer to them as dogs, or dolphins, or human beings. They are not more "pure prokaryotic cells" than a single prokaryotic cell. Also, while you compare the evolution from heavy to extreme metal with prokaryotic cells to complex organisms, I would compare it between Asian men and Native American men after crossing the land bridge between modern day Russia and Alaska; they are different, but one is not clearly superior to the other.

In response to your objection about trite pop songs also being encompassed by my definition of journey, I would point to the first novels of James Joyce, "Dubliners" and "A Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Man". Both works, particularly the latter, are centered around modern homo sapiens leading unexemplary, mundane lives, during which they have such epiphanies as you describe. They are not kings, generals, or valiant heroes, but they still achieve a great deal of moral insight and have experiences of great intensity and vividness.

Now that I think about it, much of Western civilization's greatest literature includes this theme as a central concern: War And Peace, The Death Of Ivan Ilych, Don Quixote, Hadji Murad, Anna Karenina, A Rose For Emily, Heart Of Darkness, Tintern Abbey, Notes From The Underground, The Fairy Queen, The Prelude, Light In August, Crime And Punishment, The Sorrows Of Young Werther, The Iceman Cometh, The Sound And The Fury, A Farewell To Arms, Ode To A Nightingale, Walden, Oversoul, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Lord Jim, Huck Finn, even Romeo And Juliet. I'm sure that you're not willing to assign those works to the same place in the aesthetic hierarchy as Hannah Montana and Justin Bieber?

What's more, a short hike can provide a treasure trove of priceless realizations, and has great fecundity as a backdrop for contemplation. No need to denigrate that worthy activity.

Of course we don't identify most modern organisms as prokayrotic; that is because they are eukayrotic! One of their distinguishing characteristics is the presence of organelles such as mitochondria, which enable them to produce ATP much more efficiently than their evolutionary antecedents, just as the more extreme bands were able to make more sophisticated and coherent compositions than the original waves. My analogy stands as presented.

In response to your objection about trite pop songs also being encompassed by my definition of journey, I would point to the first novels of James Joyce, "Dubliners" and "A Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Man". Both works, particularly the latter, are centered around modern homo sapiens leading unexemplary, mundane lives, during which they have such epiphanies as you describe. They are not kings, generals, or valiant heroes, but they still achieve a great deal of moral insight and have experiences of great intensity and vividness.

Now that I think about it, much of Western civilization's greatest literature includes this theme as a central concern: War And Peace, The Death Of Ivan Ilych, Don Quixote, Hadji Murad, Anna Karenina, A Rose For Emily, Heart Of Darkness, Tintern Abbey, Notes From The Underground, The Fairy Queen, The Prelude, Light In August, Crime And Punishment, The Sorrows Of Young Werther, The Iceman Cometh, The Sound And The Fury, A Farewell To Arms, Ode To A Nightingale, Walden, Oversoul, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Lord Jim, Huck Finn, even Romeo And Juliet. I'm sure that you're not willing to assign those works to the same place in the aesthetic hierarchy as Hannah Montana and Justin Bieber?

What's more, a short hike can provide a treasure trove of priceless realizations, and has great fecundity as a backdrop for contemplation. No need to denigrate that worthy activity.

Of course we don't identify most modern organisms as prokayrotic; that is because they are eukayrotic! One of their distinguishing characteristics is the presence of organelles such as mitochondria, which enable them to produce ATP much more efficiently than their evolutionary antecedents, just as the more extreme bands were able to make more sophisticated and coherent compositions than the original waves. My analogy stands as presented.

I am aware that quantum physics has valid theories for how something came out of nothing, but the issue is that these theories still rely on physical laws that came into being on their own. Also, if an objective reality could spawn this way, so could multiple subjective realities.

While writers like James Joyce indeed wrote about mundane pursuits and problems that led to deep epiphanies, I think a novel is a very different animal from a song or an album. The duration of a novel is much longer, and it is a more complex art form than music. A better comparison would be between music and poetry, or music and paintings. If we look at poetry and paintings, we will see a lot of examples of these works with no journey or epiphany that are still of high quality. A whole novel would be tiresome to sit through, at least usually, if there were no epiphanies or revelations. As for trite pop music, I'm more familiar with a good bulk of the literature you mentioned than to Miley Cyrus or Justin Bieber, to the point where I do not even know a single song by either of those artists, but from what I heard it never interested me; so no, I would not place them on the same level as great writers.

As for the short hike, that is exactly what I am saying. Sometimes a song is like a short hike, and there is not clearly anything in that hike that can be called an epiphany, but the hike can lead me into a state of contemplation perhaps not even intended by the artist which will lead me to an epiphany. That is why, and I repeat this idea, music is interactive and in many ways subjective.

As for the cells, I am not sure what you refuted. The point is that prokaryotic cells have evolved into eukaryotic organisms, but I do not see that as a fitting analogy to heavy metal evolving into extreme metal. First of all, a huge potion (probably a majority) of exteme metal is not that complex. A lot of it is minimalist, a lot of it is sloppy and/or straightforward, and the extremely technical bands are often very shallow when it comes to intellectual or emotional or artistic depth. While there is plenty of very complex extreme metal, there is a lot of very complex heavy metal as well.

While writers like James Joyce indeed wrote about mundane pursuits and problems that led to deep epiphanies, I think a novel is a very different animal from a song or an album. The duration of a novel is much longer, and it is a more complex art form than music. A better comparison would be between music and poetry, or music and paintings. If we look at poetry and paintings, we will see a lot of examples of these works with no journey or epiphany that are still of high quality.

'A more complex art form'? I must challenge you on this; I suspect that this view arises from your having a greater knowledge of literature than either music or visual art. I can assure you that the latter two are just as complex.

The reason there are no 'epiphanies' in painting is that a painting, unlike music, and unlike the experience of reading, is not time-based.

While writers like James Joyce indeed wrote about mundane pursuits and problems that led to deep epiphanies, I think a novel is a very different animal from a song or an album. The duration of a novel is much longer, and it is a more complex art form than music. A better comparison would be between music and poetry, or music and paintings. If we look at poetry and paintings, we will see a lot of examples of these works with no journey or epiphany that are still of high quality.

'A more complex art form'? I must challenge you on this; I suspect that this view arises from your having a greater knowledge of literature than either music or visual art. I can assure you that the latter two are just as complex.

The reason there are no 'epiphanies' in painting is that a painting, unlike music, and unlike the experience of reading, is not time-based.

No, I must confess that my knowledge of literature extends little beyond high school honors courses as I am not an avid reader. A lot of those books mentioned are part of the canon used in the education system, or are classic enough that I am familiar with them. My knowledge of music extends little outside the realm of rock and metal. So, first thing first, I am not an expert in either field whatsoever and know I have much learning to do in my life. I am even more ignorant of visual art.

Anyway, this is my point: reading a book is much more time based than hearing an album. Also, words can evoke highly detailed and specific visuals, sounds, tastes, smells, and feelings. Music can ignite these, but much more abstractly and in accordance with a subjective interpretation and one's own filling in of the blanks. While music does have words, the lyrics, this cannot compare to the amount in a novel. I find music to be simpler, but not inferior to literature. Music is far more abstract and subjective.

I don;t understand why you praise "the tedious, mundane, or at the very least formulaic ordeals of daily life" in art. Sure, I get how you could want to hear something that does not make you sit down awestruck and stare at the sky every time you put it on, but isn't the music that leads to insights on existence far more valuable since the mundane would just be mundane with or without the music?

I don;t understand why you praise "the tedious, mundane, or at the very least formulaic ordeals of daily life" in art. Sure, I get how you could want to hear something that does not make you sit down awestruck and stare at the sky every time you put it on, but isn't the music that leads to insights on existence far more valuable since the mundane would just be mundane with or without the music?

More abstract is certainly simpler in certain ways, since details are often vague and left to the imagination. The complexity only arises when human begins exert their own filling-in-of-blanks into the work.

As for praising the ordeals of everyday life in music, I believe that art should be able to be used to reflect all aspects of human existence, not just the great or the powerful. Making a connection between the mundane in one's life and the mundane in art can itself result in emotional revelations that could not be reached through grandiosity. I believe for art to reach its full potential, we cannot pigeon-hole it to only serve one or a few purposes.

To address your first points, my perception is the closest thing to reality I am aware of. Sentient beings, as different subjective realities, could communicate through metaphysical collisions of their subjective realities, creating the illusion of an objective reality. I do not know whether or not that could be labeled as a branch of solipsism.

I'm not sure how subjective realities could collide with one another (or interact in any way) unless there is some non-illusory shared "stuff" between them. In which case, the existence of these subjective realities would be contingent upon said "stuff." Given this, wouldn't it make sense to merely apply Occam's Razor and eliminate the unnecessary assumption of multiple realities, and just say there is one shared reality for which there are competing perceptions?

Quote

To address the second point, by that logic even then, extreme metal has borrowed a lot from punk philosophy. Having some roots in the original metal philosophy? Well, so do some bands that have nothing to with metal. Pure metal needs then sound and philosophy, nothing watered down.

The fact that extreme metal has borrowed from punk doesn't change the fact that it's lineage is directly descended from heavy metal. I'm not aware of any non-metal genre that has roots in the original metal philosophy. There are some that have borrowed elements from metal's sound, but usually exist as nothing but a corruption. Could you give specific examples to the contrary?

To address your first points, my perception is the closest thing to reality I am aware of. Sentient beings, as different subjective realities, could communicate through metaphysical collisions of their subjective realities, creating the illusion of an objective reality. I do not know whether or not that could be labeled as a branch of solipsism.

I'm not sure how subjective realities could collide with one another (or interact in any way) unless there is some non-illusory shared "stuff" between them. In which case, the existence of these subjective realities would be contingent upon said "stuff." Given this, wouldn't it make sense to merely apply Occam's Razor and eliminate the unnecessary assumption of multiple realities, and just say there is one shared reality for which there are competing perceptions?

I already know, for certain, that there is one reality: my subjective reality. If I were to follow Occam's Razor strictly, there is no evidence that all other creatures are not merely philosophical zombies and that the only thing that exists is my mind and perceptions. I personally am very critical of Occam's Razor anyway (which is why I personally believe in other subjective realities for other creatures), as it only hints at probability, but offers no answers. If throughout history philosophers always followed it, we would have made less progress at a slower speed. The ancient Greek philosophers who created the idea of atoms, small balls that compose all matter, were not following Occam's Razor and turned out to be correct.

As for the objective reality where subjective realities collide, I do not believe it is necessary, since by "collide" I simply mean interact, and time and space would not be necessary for this with metaphysics that travel directly between subjective realities.

Quote

Quote

To address the second point, by that logic even then, extreme metal has borrowed a lot from punk philosophy. Having some roots in the original metal philosophy? Well, so do some bands that have nothing to with metal. Pure metal needs then sound and philosophy, nothing watered down.

The fact that extreme metal has borrowed from punk doesn't change the fact that it's lineage is directly descended from heavy metal. I'm not aware of any non-metal genre that has roots in the original metal philosophy. There are some that have borrowed elements from metal's sound, but usually exist as nothing but a corruption. Could you give specific examples to the contrary?

It is questionable how much punk-influenced metal is, in general, rooted in metal. One of the earlier bands in the U.S. to break into the punk/metal scene would be Metallica. When they first started out, they were booed off stage and kicked out of clubs because the metal community mistook them for nothing but punks. They did not always fit alongside bands like Armored Saint and Savage Grace, who at the time were considered by the orthodox to be what metal was all about. Ratt was even more accepted in those clubs. Also, during the NWOBHM in England, there was a strong rivalry between punks and metalheads. They were opposites, one celebrating theatrics and musical prowess, while the other embracing stripped-down simplicity and politics before music. Hardcore punk is even more at difference with metal, in the sense that the aesthetics were stripped away to t-shirts and jeans. Speed/thrash metal picked up on this aesthetic and moved away from a lot of the original metal atmosphere.

A non-metal genre that has its roots in metal? There is much "alternative metal" and "glam metal" out there, that I am sure ANUS rejects, that clearly links itself back to bands like Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, etc. Of course, you can argue "those genres are corruptions," but what is to stop anyone from arguing that punk/metal is not a corruption too? It definitely changed the playing field, and outright rejected a lot of the musical ideas and aesthetics of the traditional heavy metal genre. What is a "corruption" is relative.

I already know, for certain, that there is one reality: my subjective reality. If I were to follow Occam's Razor strictly, there is no evidence that all other creatures are not merely philosophical zombies and that the only thing that exists is my mind and perceptions. I personally am very critical of Occam's Razor anyway (which is why I personally believe in other subjective realities for other creatures), as it only hints at probability, but offers no answers. If throughout history philosophers always followed it, we would have made less progress at a slower speed. The ancient Greek philosophers who created the idea of atoms, small balls that compose all matter, were not following Occam's Razor and turned out to be correct.

As for the objective reality where subjective realities collide, I do not believe it is necessary, since by "collide" I simply mean interact, and time and space would not be necessary for this with metaphysics that travel directly between subjective realities.

In that case, let me ask you a few questions. If only subjective realities exists, then why do they all appear to follow the same consistent physical laws? Also, do you think that inanimate matter (or any non-sentient entities) exist independent of subjective observers, or do they cease to exist when not being observed? If sentient entities are the result of some universal consciousness (as you alluded to in a separate post), then does that consciousness observe a reality, and if so is that reality subjective or objective?

Quote

There is much "alternative metal" and "glam metal" out there, that I am sure ANUS rejects, that clearly links itself back to bands like Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, etc.

Well, glam is pop music dressed up as metal, so I don't think it can be considered part of the natural evolution of metal. Alternative metal is either some sort of contrived eclectic mish-mash (and therefore non-organic) or Nu Metal, which is a marketing term invented to describe the music of furious victims of childhood sexual abuse. So, I remain convinced my definition is accurate.

I already know, for certain, that there is one reality: my subjective reality. If I were to follow Occam's Razor strictly, there is no evidence that all other creatures are not merely philosophical zombies and that the only thing that exists is my mind and perceptions. I personally am very critical of Occam's Razor anyway (which is why I personally believe in other subjective realities for other creatures), as it only hints at probability, but offers no answers. If throughout history philosophers always followed it, we would have made less progress at a slower speed. The ancient Greek philosophers who created the idea of atoms, small balls that compose all matter, were not following Occam's Razor and turned out to be correct.

As for the objective reality where subjective realities collide, I do not believe it is necessary, since by "collide" I simply mean interact, and time and space would not be necessary for this with metaphysics that travel directly between subjective realities.

In that case, let me ask you a few questions. If only subjective realities exists, then why do they all appear to follow the same consistent physical laws? Also, do you think that inanimate matter (or any non-sentient entities) exist independent of subjective observers, or do they cease to exist when not being observed? If sentient entities are the result of some universal consciousness (as you alluded to in a separate post), then does that consciousness observe a reality, and if so is that reality subjective or objective?

The subjective realities may appear to be following the same physical laws because they all diverged from the same first subjective reality, hence the similarity in their functions. Non-sentient entities do not exist if not being "observed" (experienced may be a better term). However, supernatural sentient beings of any sort (spirits, gods, the first sentience which may be "God" that spawned all other sentient minds) could explain how inanimate objects are experienced (therefore existing) despite not being experienced by animal or plant sentience.

I understand that this theory may not be correct in part or in whole, but since I have never experienced objective reality (or anything outside my subjective reality), I do not feel intellectually or logically compelled to place my faith in anything outside it but my personal speculations (which have the potential to be as true as anyone else's, including the ones we hold onto out of tradition, assumption, and keeping the status quo in society and science.)

Quote

Quote

There is much "alternative metal" and "glam metal" out there, that I am sure ANUS rejects, that clearly links itself back to bands like Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, etc.

Well, glam is pop music dressed up as metal, so I don't think it can be considered part of the natural evolution of metal. Alternative metal is either some sort of contrived eclectic mish-mash (and therefore non-organic) or Nu Metal, which is a marketing term invented to describe the music of furious victims of childhood sexual abuse. So, I remain convinced my definition is accurate.

I do not mean to be offensive, but in this post you have demonstrated that there are certain historical facts you are ignorant of. Glam is a separate genre from pop music. Pop music (I refer to the genre known simply as "pop," not the word "pop" as an abbreviation for "popular music" which is an umbrella term for many genres including metal itself due to metal's roots) began in the pre-rockn'roll era, whereas glam rock evolved out of rock around the late 60's; they are separate genres.

The genre known as "glam metal" began in the mid-70's when Dee Snider joined Twisted Sister, a glam rock band from New York associated with another glam rock band known as New York Dolls. Dee Snider was, in addition to being a fan of rock in general, a fan of the emerging heavy metal movement; two of his favorite bands were Black Sabbath and Judas Priest. He consciously decided to mix heavy metal and glam rock because he felt the genres have good chemistry, thus creating what we call "glam metal." Many bands followed Twisted Sister, who were underground for almost a decade before having any mainstream success, but the "glam metal" movement was alive with many bands in the 70's such as Killer Kane Band, Circus Circus, Ratt, Sister, Wrathchild, Girl, Dokken, and London. When Motley Crue, at one point just another one of these then obscure bands, landed a record deal and released their debut, a number of those bands managed to get launched into fame as well. Others just broke up or remained obscure. Anyway, back on the subject of Dee Snider and Twisted Sister, he definitely always thought of himself as a metalhead, but claims that he felt embarrassed when glam metal became very commercial in the late 80's with bands like Warrant who had lost the idea of making raunchy heavy metal/glam rock, and simply streamlined the music as a commercial product. Despite where glam metal ended up, it is historically clear that it is rooted partially in metal but not entirely (just like speed/thrash metal).

Alternative metal bears a similar but less interesting history of bands like King's X, Helmet, and Faith No More which mixed heavy metal with various forms of alternative rock.

After looking at how these genres became into being, and studying them, I know I personally became very suspicious of why punk/metal fusions assumed themselves as more metal than their sibling fusions. Actually, I think it's clear; punk's attitude is so hungry and irreverent that it tried to eat up everything else; this hungry and irreverant attitude is not exactly metal, though, which is more civilized in its masculinity (ex. biking in clean leather versus thrashing in dirty t-shirt and jeans.)

I do not mean to be offensive, but in this post you have demonstrated that there are certain historical facts you are ignorant of. Glam is a separate genre from pop music. Pop music (I refer to the genre known simply as "pop," not the word "pop" as an abbreviation for "popular music" which is an umbrella term for many genres including metal itself due to metal's roots) began in the pre-rockn'roll era, whereas glam rock evolved out of rock around the late 60's; they are separate genres.

No offense taken (FYI, it's very difficult to offend me, so don't ever worry about it). I was using pop in the same sense that you are, Pop Music (e.g. Britney Spears) not Popular Music (which includes all music except Art and Folk). If you insist on differentiating between Pop and Rock (which I see little reason to do), then OK Glam is Rock, not Pop.

Quote

The genre known as "glam metal" began in the mid-70's when Dee Snider joined Twisted Sister, a glam rock band from New York associated with another glam rock band known as New York Dolls. Dee Snider was, in addition to being a fan of rock in general, a fan of the emerging heavy metal movement; two of his favorite bands were Black Sabbath and Judas Priest. He consciously decided to mix heavy metal and glam rock because he felt the genres have good chemistry, thus creating what we call "glam metal." Many bands followed Twisted Sister, who were underground for almost a decade before having any mainstream success, but the "glam metal" movement was alive with many bands in the 70's such as Killer Kane Band, Circus Circus, Ratt, Sister, Wrathchild, Girl, Dokken, and London. When Motley Crue, at one point just another one of these then obscure bands, landed a record deal and released their debut, a number of those bands managed to get launched into fame as well. Others just broke up or remained obscure. Anyway, back on the subject of Dee Snider and Twisted Sister, he definitely always thought of himself as a metalhead, but claims that he felt embarrassed when glam metal became very commercial in the late 80's with bands like Warrant who had lost the idea of making raunchy heavy metal/glam rock, and simply streamlined the music as a commercial product. Despite where glam metal ended up, it is historically clear that it is rooted partially in metal but not entirely (just like speed/thrash metal).

So, you admit that Glam Metal arose from Glam Rock bands attempting to infuse Metal elements into their sound. In other words, it's not really a natural outgrowth of Metal, but an attempt to assimilate it from the outside.

Quote

Alternative metal bears a similar but less interesting history of bands like King's X, Helmet, and Faith No More which mixed heavy metal with various forms of alternative rock.

Faith No More was the exact band I was thinking of when I described Alternative Metal. They're a total eclectic mess of influences. I'm pretty sure they didn't pick up rapping from any Metal band.